The cruel Coulter
I almost never write about Ann Coulter. She’s not my cup of tea: too abrasive, and inclined to say over-the-top things just for effect.
But it’s long been clear that she’s very intelligent, as well as ballsy. The lady can talk; her mind habitually races. Coulter has never seemed to hold back through fear of saying controversial things—if fact, she’s seemed to get her kicks from observations that were un-PC, the more outrageous the better.
So I was surprised a while back when Coulter came out for Romney. He wouldn’t appear to be her candidate at all; the “safe” “establishment” guy? I’d have thought that almost anyone else except the far-out Ron Paul would offer her more of the conservative red meat she’d be looking for. Coulter’s stated reason for supporting Mitt was that she wanted a win for Republicans and a defeat for Obama, and only Romney was the best bet to do it.
It certainly didn’t seem to be in her own interests to go for Romney. The anyone-but-Romney crowd was up in arms. “Republican media elite” they sniffed; what do you expect? But that argument didn’t make much sense to me in Coulter’s case. I couldn’t figure out what would be in it for her if she backed Romney and trashed the others—especially Newt, who would seem to be her stylistic twin.
Coulter has earned her bread and butter by being a feisty contrarian, not an “in with the in crowd” gal. And yet, here she was for the blandest guy in the bunch, and not the most conservative candidate either. This was not going to play well with her base.
And judging by this tape, South Carolina certainly hasn’t made her change her mind. In fact, she’s doubling down. Like Newt, Ann doesn’t pull her punches. She’s got some interesting things to say, especially about Newt’s conservatism:
NOTE: By the way, do you know what the word “coulter” means? Pretty descriptive, I’d say:
A blade or wheel attached to the beam of a plow that makes vertical cuts in the soil in advance of the plowshare.
How did I know to look it up? It occurs in one of my very favorite poems “To a Mouse” by Robert Burns. I’ve long been aware that it refers to some sort of plowlike implement, but had never learned exactly what till now:
…Thou saw the fields laid bare an’ waste,
An’ weary winter comin fast,
An’ cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell,
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro’ thy cell…
The cruel coulter.
Projection has a name here: it’s coulter.
Otherwise, I love her and suffer her cruel blast.
Saw a clip of her recent comments from last night, and this provocateur was positively hysterical about Newt.
Did Newt perhaps hit on her in the past. and she was really repulsed?
All I know is that this way out of proportion reaction by Coulter is not just straight political analysis and commentary.
Does the LSM hate Gingrich? Not quite.
http://tinyurl.com/6vl86cx
It is not charity and good will which makes politics. Hatred, envy, suspicion, revenge, fear, and the like, these are the building blocs of politics.
When Coulter characterizes Gingrich’es victories over the press as glib, she’s jealous. It might look easy, but it’s not.
Obama and his administration has been press unfriendly and resulted in their ridicule and exposure. Gingrich is going to get some good press from the bad press because they see in him a meal ticket.
Wolla D: I didn’t see it as any more over the top than Coulter usually is. But I must say I did wonder whether she’d had some personal experience with Gingrich that didn’t go well, whether of a smarmy hit-on nature or otherwise.
Curtis: I don’t think she’s jealous of his glibness. She is mighty glib herself.
She either can’t stand him for some other reason (perhaps personal experience, perhaps just his record) or she really does think he can’t win and Romney can. Or perhaps both. That’s my reading, anyway.
The nostalgic Coulter:
Her favorite is NJ-Gov. Christie, the “real” conservative coming to the rescue of Romney’s sinking ship.
I read one of her books and found a kind of pattern; fact, fact, fact, zinger. Fact, fact, fact, zinger. Almost predictable.
Fun read.
Yeah, in view of various of his statements since his election, I’ve started to reevaluate Christie, and to realize that Christie–who I initially thought very highly of–is actually an “establishment Republican” and far less truly Conservative that I had thought he was and he initially presented himself to be.
And yet, back in February of last year at CPAC, she said “if we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee, and we’ll lose.” Hmm…maybe that explains her going strong against Gingrich, because Christie’s been doing the same. See video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vo6SOpOE788
Why shouldn’t we just take her at her word? I think the reason Coulter is arguing so passionately against Newt as the potential GOP nominee is that she believes what she says: Newt ISN’T conservative, moral, or electable. I don’t think it requires an elaborate explanation; Newt’s record over the last 30 years in Washington more than justifies Coulter’s criticisms.
Seems like the Newt faction has become such a cult, anyone who is against him is immediately branded as an “elite” or a member of the “establishment.” Why can’t people just have an honest disagreement?
Conrad: I’m in agreement with you. My comments about her possible other motives were (a) to preemptively answer those who would say otherwise; and (b) because I am somewhat cynical about the media myself, so I wanted to explore other options. And, as I said, I’ve never been a Coulter fan. But I think she may indeed be sincere here.
In addition, I agree with her evaluation, obviously.
Perhaps Coulter truly fears defeat so much that she has changed her position on Romney and attacks Newt like she attacks Democrats, but I doubt it. In that vido provided by Ann, Coulter states, “I don’t like to attack Republicans.” (at seconds 28)
I sincerely doubt Coulter is jealous of Newt’s glibness, but of his success with and against the media. Deep down, I think she believes it is her and her integrity which should be the subject of adulation and Newt getting it–well, that’s just galling. In other words, she’s being a -rhymes-with-rich.
Just goes to show ya, what stinkers we all are.
Time and again “generic Republican” beats Obama in polls. That’s Romney, a man with little personality and no sharp edges or dark past. That’s what Coulter sees. It’s surprising how few Republicans see that.
It is refreshing to see the establishment so afraid of Gingrich because they know what is going to happen (to them) if Newton Leroy Gingrich is elected POTUS …
We the People have had enough of the ruling class, telling us whom to vote for. The ruling class, unable to stand up and say to Obama “enough is enough”.
It is hard to beleive but true, that a lot of those backing Romney today may have voted for Obama in 08 (ie: former MA-R-Gov. William (Bill) Floyd Weld) … History in the making.
The so called “cult” as Conrad said is going to grow and grow and grow because there is “panique a bord” the ruling class.
gellieba,
Don’t let your OWS and 99% memberships elapse.
The main thing i notice with Newt detractors is they seem to be people who are adverse to risk.
I’m guessing they never have less than a quarter tank of gas in their car. Their kids have never rode their bikes more than two blocks from home. Their utility bills are always paid early. They’ve never been in a ghetto liquor store after dark. Their dog with up to date shots has never been any farther from home than the kids on the bikes.
We Americans owe our very existence to people who weren’t so adverse to risk. It’s in our DNA. Or it was.
If there was a repeat today of the movie “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” it would need only one character: Gingrich.
But we know who wins, don’t we?
I think it’s the same here. There’s little actually evil or bad about Gingrich, plenty of ugly, and plenty of good. At least for winning a political race.
For instance, there can’t be a credible discussion about Newt as there is about Barack: fool or evil.
And there can’t be a discussion that he is not accomplished much good. His Contract with America is one of the most singular political changers and achievements ever in American history.
It mostly centers on ugly.
So which of you out there is not? Give the guy a break. Sheeez.
All of you who say Gingrich is not electable, aren’t you the reason Palin didn’t run and hence the reason why Gingrich is now the only champion left?
Romney, so well described by Wolla Dalbo, that it bears repeating:
And what does bland Mitt, with his painful, insincere smile offer? A bland little “bank officer” in a pin stripped suit–a nice guy, a family guy, mind you–but a guy who is not about to acknowledge all of the “bad” and “disturbing’ things above, much less wade into the bloody melee with an iron pipe or a knife, and fight for us and fight his way through.
As Grandpa would say “That’s good eatin.”
It’s surprising how few Republicans see that.
True enough. I see a dishonest man who can’t tell us what he really believes because he’d lose the election if he did. As my aunt (MA) told me, he says one thing to one audience and another to the next, two faced she called him. Of course, she’s a Democrat, but I think her perception speaks to his ability to attract independents, and it certainly agrees with mine.
to Mr. Frank :
Thank you for the reminder.
gellieba.
Capitalist, small business owner and shareholder of a US corporation.
To SteveH:
… “It’s in our DNA. Or it was”.
So well said.
I’m just going to note something here on one of the reasons that I think Coulter has a very genuine dislike of Newt.
I don’t think it’s that he made a pass at her (although it could have happened, and in a way would really just strengthen my case here), but that she takes her Christian values VERY seriously. Newt has had 3 wives, 2 of whom he cheated on. I think that’s all she needs to despise him. I kind of think all the rest for her (concerning Newt) is just gravy, if you follow.
Neo, you’ve heard my say on why I’m a Newt supporter, and hopefully understand that I am not an enthusiastic Newt supporter. And even while I’m upset about Newt’s attacks on Romney about the Bain thing (I even pointed that out as a way the left would hit him a while back), Romney’s response is EXACTLY why I don’t think he can win… In the last debate, he had some good points (“I’m not going to apologize for being successful”, etc.), but the initial defense was mealy mouthed and he essentially defended from the left (“I’ll point out that what I did is what Obama did with GM and Chrysler!” – This is what conservatives are against…).
To me, that’s very telling as how his mind works. His initial thought was to point out that he, as a capitalist, just did the same thing Obama did. That sort of thing bothers me quite a bit, and bodes very ill for his defense in the smear campaign that’s coming.
It may be true that Romney won’t “embarrass” the Republicans, but he’s not going to do a very good job at defending or promoting them either.
He’s the “safe” pick in a way, I guess. But in my political memory, the safe pick for the GOP almost invariably loses. The only one who didn’t won by the skin of his teeth because he was up against a robot (George W. Bush). And that went to the Supreme Court…
Anyway, this is all a re-hash of earlier posts here, but I just wanted to say I think the source of Coulter’s hatred (it seems that to me, but feel free to disagree… I’ve been reading and watching Coulter for years, and this to me seems more personal than a dislike… If it were dislike, there would be humor in her remarks.) is more about Gingrich’s marriage history than anything else.
I’ve heard Coulter say multiple times she likes Romney because he is spineless and can be pushed around. She didn’t pick him for his conservatism, but because he can be squeezed toward conservatism.
Gingrich can’t be squeezed by anybody. He uses similar rhetorical technique to Coulter, too. (exposition -> zinger) Since he’s not her kind of conservative, he has character handicaps, she can’t push him around, and he steals her thunder, of course she hates him.
I think Mr. Frank hit the nail on the head, Coulter fears an Obama second term, as do we all. Yes, AC is flamboyant and sarcastic, but she is also very astute. Go Ann, go! For I believe Newt would prove to be a reprise of Goldwater. (Note I admired Goldwater.)
Of topic but thoroughly astounding is the unanimous SCOTUS decision on using GPS tracking without a warrant. There must be unicorns because an unanimous decision from this court protecting the 4th is simply amazing.
Here’s something to qualm those fears that only one person of a certain type can beat Obama.
Check out the comments to this puff piece by Yahoo.
The Broken Dreams of Obama’s First Term.
http://news.yahoo.com/broken-dreams-obamas-first-term-181930389.html
Some comments and their ratings:
I want an article profiling the broken dreams of the average American. We are the victims, not Obama!
12-0
2008 – Obama supporters in the streets: “Hope and Change!” 2012 – Obama supporters in the streets: Broke and deranged.
21-1
When do we get to the part about the millions of American’s who’s dreams have been broken?
226-19
I don’t think anyone really expected the economy to turn around over night. But we did think we would get more than a health care plan that around 75% of the people didn’t want. doubling the deficit and constitution be damned attitude.
62-7
There’s not one pro-Obama statement with a positive reading. In fact, I don’t think there’s even a pro Obama statement.
It’s likely that voter fraud is more important than whether its Gingrich or Romney.
http://tinyurl.com/7jjzvwm
I think BHO is very vulnerable, despite the willingness of the MSM to provide air cover. What has BHO done to improve the lives of those of us who walk Main Street? Even if you are die hard democrat on Main Street you can’t point to a single thing BHO has touched that has made a positive difference in your life. Instead of gold, everything he touches turns to lead. Its spelled S-O-L-Y-N-D-R-A which is a perfect example of the hundreds of thousands of jobs BHO has not saved or created.
The eventual republican nominee simply has to attack BHO’s record as POTUS. Keep it simple and sharp, and stick the blade into the guts repeatedly.
Little guy against the big guy. Who do you vote for?
That’s what’s going Newt’s way and he will win if he doesn’t sabotage his little guy status. Christie and other establishment Republicans–with the help of David Frum (David Frum!)–only help him when they take cheap shots at him.
An embarrassment to the Republican Party?
Maybe, people are thinking, it’s the Republican Party that is the embarrassment.
Hunh, hunh, how do ya like that. You don’t do ya. Do ya. Do ya?
Yep, that’s about the level of us hill folk.
I have another thought on what happened to Coulter: Temporary Derangement Syndrome. It happens to all of us. It happened to Gingrich ala Pelosi.
Funny how the Republican establishment will court the graces of Muslim savages yet look down their long noses at evangelicals as fundamental ignoramuses.
Curtis @8:14 and 9:42: Amen. Especially re vote fraud.
I think that Curtis was right on with his referenced article (@ 4:48 PM).
I just finished watching tonite’s debate on NBC and am currently listening to the biggy NBC “analysts”: David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell… They are all raving about Newt and bashing Mitt. And I think Mitt held his own pretty well tonite. I know Newt fans won’t agree with this, but I saw him as spending most of his mic time deflecting so many questions & changing the subject, diverting to Romney-attacks with well-practiced talking points, primarily moving to the subject of negative campaigning against him. Newt, the Hypocrite nonpareil. He’s taunting Romney after he spends all day bombing him. And his victory speech the other night was more a venomous attack on Romney as opposed to graciously acknowledging his win and thanking his supporters. To those of us who see Newt as a small, bitter, vicious and vindictive man, he is doing a pretty good job of proving us right. But I wonder if Newt-lovers see this at all.
At any rate, it’s clear who the Left want as Obama’s rival: Newt, Newt, Newt! They believe they can swat him like a fly early on paving the way for an easy coast to victory for Obama. Earlier today I saw a clip of Andrea Mitchell saying that Romney needs to look at his family history again and reconsider his stance on immigration because when his grandfather immigrated to the U.S. from his birthplace in Mexico, it was as an illegal.
The only problem is she was 100% wrong. He was the son of American citizens who had originally lived in America, so he was an American citizen free to enter the U.S. as just that — a citizen.
I expect we will see a lot of those stealth attacks from the MSM, with little relation to truth. They want Newt so badly they can taste it. And they know how high his negatives are, what a treasure trove of baggage he has — and not just 10 + year old baggage but all he has been doing in last 10 years. They can’t wait to have their party!
Here’s a truth greater than “the Left wants Obama” or “the Left want’s Newt:”
The LEFT wants nobody. That’s their game. No opposition whatsover. Like McMurphy said about Nurse Ratchet: She likes a rigged game.
And let’s be fair. Romney and Newt bring different strengths into the fight that we love to argue about but until the fight happens, we really don’t know. Remember Ali v Foreman.
Romney has the longer reach. He appeals to rational people, those independents who are rational. The rational ones. But he might alienate the base. So will Romney gain two at the price of three.
Then Gingrich, on the other hand, is quicker. Faster. Boy, can he dance. He’s gonna fly around that ring. And he’s got stamina. But if he gets cut off and is forced to defend himself, well, he won’t last very long under the expected barrage. He’s got a glass chin.
So both have advantage and disadvantages. It’s a crap shoot and my shoot is with G not with R. But let’s at least acknowledge they are both better than Obama and retain our support for either one that wins and not become so animated in our support for one or the other that we forget who the opponent is.
Here’s a joke to lighten the tension: What do Obama, Gingrich and Romney have in common? They love America! Except in Obama’s case, that’s Socialist America.
I’ll be working on better jokes.
foxmarks: I strongly suspect you left out something there. I doubt Coulter said she likes Romney because he’s spineless and can be pushed around. Methinks you’re leaving out an all-important first part: she thinks Romney can beat Obama and that Gingrich can’t. And then after that, she probably said she thinks that with a Republican Congress, and having made campaign promises that are conservative (e.g. repealing Obamacare), his feet will be held to the conservative fire.
So you think that Coulter’s sole criterion for supporting a candidate is whether she personally can push him around? That she would willingly reject the stronger candidate, Newt, and knowingly condemn us to loser Romney and four years more of Obama, just so she could push Romney around on the off chance he happens to win?
Again, the background for all this is a climate in which the Left successfully demonized and shut out the most appealing, authentically conservative candidates (Palin, Daniels, Perry).
The Tea-Party base of true conservatives has been carrying around anger at this slanted playing field for almost a year (even longer for Palin fans).
Combine that anger with longstanding mistrust of “moderate” inside-the-beltway RINOs (note that there’s no such term as a “DINO”)… and this is what we get:
Republicans desperate for a vocal defender of conservatism are left with a deeply flawed candidate.
And the only alternative is Mormon Ken – whose mythical “electability” will vanish once the Dems light into him with their class warfare rhetoric and dirty tricks.
I’m hoping that a brokered convention will bring back conservative candidates that the media pushed off the table.
If we run Newt, Obama wins by a landslide. If we run Romney, it’s a toss up. Coulter is no fool. Romney, unfortunately, is our best shot at this point. Newt is a used car salesman. He says whatever is required to close the deal. Look at his long, “distinguished” record. He is NOT the most conservative of the two candidates. He’s just the most comfortable lying about it.
Fail.
I, um, lived through Gingrich’s tenure. And I paid attention in those days. As did a lot of people, for some of whom this is their umpteenth presidential election (good gawd, there are people reading and talking on this blog who voted for JFK, and maybe even Ike …crap, my first vote came in the Nixon/McGovern election).
The Contract with America isn’t some musty meaningless relic from the hoary past: it represents a seminal moment in political – and cultural – history, that coincided with (and was arguably responsible for) the emergence of the Republicans to the majority status …after several generations of GOP status as second fiddle. It marked the public ascendency of conservatism itself.
And Gingrich was the author of the Contract with America. And Newt’ probably did as much to engineer the Republican takeover of the House in ’94, as Palin did in 2010 in wresting control of the House from the Democrats. The difference was that in 1994, the Republicans had been out of power for decades.
Those two things right there make him one of the most important people to and in the conservative movement since Reagan.
In 1994, Gingrich’s conservatism was inarguably on the level of Rush Limbaugh’s …and it is just laughable to even consider anyone trying to make the point that Limbaugh wasn’t as conservative as, say, Gov. Romney.
To suggest that the former governor of Massachusetts – a fine man, whom I will reluctantly vote for in the fall if he wins, but whose public record is at best of the “conservatism” level of, say, Bush 2 (i.e., weak, at best) …and in general whose policies while in office were more akin to the center Left – is the more conservative of the two men (based upon their past history), is completely risible, and displays an abysmal ignorance of both recent history and memorable fact.
Look, granted Newt has a lot of issues …so does Romney (though neither, perhaps, with so many as the current spin implies). Those “issues” are pulled from the political and public and personal histories of both men, and those historical facts simply aren’t conjectural at all. Most of us lived through those times, and we don’t have to read about them or look it up online to recall the facts or the truth. We remember both.
Whether whose “issues” have more weight of a negative nature is …well, that’s what the discussion, and the election is all about.
But whether Newt’s public record is more conservative than Romney’s …isn’t an issue at all. Gov. Romney can only wish that he had half of Newt’s conservative credentials and history.
As I’ve said before, that dog don’t hunt.
If you lived in NJ as I do, you all would have a different take on Gov. Christie. He is not an “establishement Republican” at all. He is transforming New Jersey while having to deal with dug in, well-established Donks in the state Legislature. He says what he thinks. He is bold. He takes on the Unions and the courts. If he can be successful in NJ, imagine what he could do in Washington.
Not a fan of Coulter’s manner so I can only tolerate her in small doses.
Regardless, I think her argument basically boils down to electability. Romney can probably beat Obama, and Newt probably can’t. She is urging us to keep our eyes on the ball here.
Yes, if Newt were to become the nominee it would be great to watch him skewer the media and Obama, particularly in the debates.
But many people (including Coulter, obviously) simply don’t like Newt, and he’s not going to become more likeable as he engages in the nastiness that will be required during the final campaign months. That matters. A lot.
There are two schools of thought on the current Romney/Gingrich death match. One is that, after months of conveniently timed OWS antics, GOP nominee Romney was inevitably going to be tarred with the heartless-Bain-rich-guy brush by the Obama campaign.
Since Newt is attacking Mitt with the same critique now, it gives Romney a chance to prepare his campaign for what’s surely to come from Obama if Mitt is the nominee.
The other school of thought, per Charles Krauthammer, is that the Gingrich/Romney cage match is a “GOP suicide march.”
I hope he’s wrong, but I fear Krauthammer is right.
American Thinker has five anti-Newt articles which ought to warm the cockles of every anti-Newt heart out there. Christopher Chantrill (Newt Gingrich is shameless);Vaughn Starr (Fidelity: Should it matter?); John W. Howard (He’s no good.); Ed Lasky (One more sign that Obama is helping Gingrich.); and finally, Sally Zelikovsky (Newt and the base).
The first three are mostly rhetoric but the last two make two good points and Ed Lasky, at least in my view, is a solid thinker. Sally’s point is that the base for Newt has the characteristics of a mob and he makes some good points.
For an even more devastating portrait of Gingrich, here’s Ed Lasky on December 7, 2012:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/a_message_from_dems_every_gop_primary_voter_should_hear.html
I’ve often used the argument that you don’t want the candidate your opponents want. Ed Lasky brings not just rhetoric but facts to the table that unions are supporting Gingrich by blasting Mitt.
I love the black eyes Gingrich has been giving the media. I love the way Gingrich articulates the crisis and the solution. Fred Thompson has recently said that is why he supports Gingrich. And the mob theory only supports the alternate idea that it is not the middle which elects a President but the amount of excitement and influence a campaign develops–just like Obama’s did in 2008.
The question is, Can Gingrich seize or command the electoral process in the general like he has done, at least partially, in the primary? If he can, then he can win because there’s more Obama hate out there than the inside the Beltway unions and other socialists think.
I wanted to write a book titled “I Used to Hate Ann Coulter, and then I Started Listening To Her”. Title said it all.
When Bush hired Dana Perino as his Press Sec’y, I thought, oh, how awful she must be–and promptly ignored her.
I was blind; now I can see.
If you can’t be pretty and smart (and female) what does that make you: either ugly and smart or pretty and dumb.
I now like the combo of pretty and smart (e.g., Coulter, Perino, Chaney, Kelly, Cupp–the list goes on and on), but, then, I am a former Democrat so that entire lovely field is now open to me.
There seems to be a gathering consensus of at least a hesitancy in going all Newt as expressed by NRO. It’s as if a lot of people are rather surprised at Newt’s success and now would say to Romney to kick it into high gear.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289051/hour-newt-editors
Of course, as Rush states, the RINO establishment has already conceded the Presidency and only wants the House and Senate. They don’t care for America as much as their own positions.
neo: You are correct. I did forget that predicate. And I didn’t even realize it was a predicate.
Although, thinking back to when the field was still large, Coulter came out for Romney. She was an early adopter. My guess is that she never felt Gingrich could win. To her others potentially electable, but less electable than Romney.
Without doing any googling, I don’t envision Coulter saying Perry was unelectable. Perry was somehow flawed on record or policy, and Romney would have still been a better choice.
That’s actually only a European “moldboard” plowshare, not a classical Mediterranean one. The soil in the north is much tougher, denser, and harder to cut, so the relatively simple one used for centuries in the Mediterranean would not work. The development of the moldboard plow was a key development (along with the horse collar) in modern civilization, esp, the European, as it enabled true, steady farming in the north, vastly increasing crop yields.